linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: cache largest vma

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 11 Nov 2013 13:04:21 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Guan Xuetao <gxt@...c.pku.edu.cn>,
	"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@...com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: cache largest vma


* Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com> wrote:
> > 2) Oracle Data mining (4K pages)
> > +------------------------+----------+------------------+---------+
> > |    mmap_cache type     | hit-rate | cycles (billion) | stddev  |
> > +------------------------+----------+------------------+---------+
> > | no mmap_cache          | -        | 63.35            | 0.20207 |
> > | current mmap_cache     | 65.66%   | 19.55            | 0.35019 |
> > | mmap_cache+largest VMA | 71.53%   | 15.84            | 0.26764 |
> > | 4 element hash table   | 70.75%   | 15.90            | 0.25586 |
> > | per-thread mmap_cache  | 86.42%   | 11.57            | 0.29462 |
> > +------------------------+----------+------------------+---------+
> >
> > This workload sure makes the point of how much we can benefit of 
> > caching the vma, otherwise find_vma() can cost more than 220% extra 
> > cycles. We clearly win here by having a per-thread cache instead of 
> > per address space. I also tried the same workload with 2Mb hugepages 
> > and the results are much more closer to the kernel build, but with the 
> > per-thread vma still winning over the rest of the alternatives.
> >
> > All in all I think that we should probably have a per-thread vma 
> > cache. Please let me know if there is some other workload you'd like 
> > me to try out. If folks agree then I can cleanup the patch and send it 
> > out.
> 
> Per thread cache sounds interesting - with per-mm caches there is a real 
> risk that some modern threaded apps pay the cost of cache updates 
> without seeing much of the benefit. However, how do you cheaply handle 
> invalidations for the per thread cache ?

The cheapest way to handle that would be to have a generation counter for 
the mm and to couple cache validity to a specific value of that. 
'Invalidation' is then the free side effect of bumping the generation 
counter when a vma is removed/moved.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/